Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5873651" data-attributes="member: 95493">Uh huh, that's more or less my meaning too..This may be a confusion in edition. My claims (in all posts) are all about 3.5 unless stated otherwise. 3.5 is my default and while I don't have the time right now to go back over the thread I will and see if that is the cause of this confusion.However, you do talk about reflavoring whereas I was talking about the original flavour of a class.So, when I play wizards I play them because I'm looking for the pointy hat wizard. When I play sorcerers I am looking for the flashy spontaneous character. I don't come to a character saying "I want to cast, which has more utility" and go from there.Might just be how I play.Here we will have to agree to disagree. It is not an arbitrary claim. Look at CharOps boards they will almost always suggest wizard first and then suggest something else which might fit better for a build. It isn't a matter of opinion. Sadly it is a visible preference for people around here and elsewhere.You underestimate me and my group, we have calculated leadership to hire hundreds of 1st level NPCs. More than once. We haven't used them to craft magic missile wands. Haven't seen the need I guess. That is certainly a matter of opinion by game. We have calculated ways to create a common railgun and other similarly silly and useless things but that doesn't really seem like the point here.I know the topic was combining vancian and 4e daily/at will powers. I was replying about your preferences in playstyle for 3e and the preference between selecting sorcerers vs wizards. Neither one of the posts I was addressing dealt with the topic of "combining vancian and 4e" styles. I purposely missed the first part of that post for you Arlough because it was on topic, the rest wasn't.I did say: I preferred vancian.You say, that I said: "In my fantasy, I guess I'll settle for this."I too am willing to try new things but I don't get the point of this part of your reply Arlough.A-ha, trapped.I talked about a knife, and how it should work mechanically. The fact that magic exists in the same world should have no effect on the conversation.Your point SHOULD BE that knives aren't magic yet is functioning as magic therefore it is invalid.Not, knives are magic just like magic, problem solved.See billd91 and others replies on the subject. I don't feel the need to expand beyond their replies.I really like this. The problem I'm having even with pathfinder's system (which is still very nice) is that they do have so many at wills. They are at wills on things that don't really matter.As it has been raised in earlier posts, when you are low level these at wills are decent but not great. They are just better than throwing a dart or shooting a crossbow. They aren't as nice as casting another magic missile or fireball. Worse still is that at higher levels they are ignored entirely as you get too many spells to effectively cast in a day. Yes I'm sure there are those of you who can give examples of this not being true but those are exceptions as opposed to the rule.Agreed, let's fix HP. Besides that however ...If you used an encounter power, as I pointed out, it DOES NOT mean you are performing a strenuous maneuver. You are performing a maneuver you can only perform once this fight. You can do it again next fight. You can do another encounter power this fight. You can do a daily power this fight too, all after you used this "strenuous maneuver" the first time. If it is so tiring then you should gain the fatigued or exhausted condition and should not be able to do those other abilities. That doesn't happen so already there is a significant flaw in the design.It is not realistic because the basic foundation of how the power works is flawed. HP describes a system where you do get wounded and hurt and eventually killed. Encounter powers describe how you can't do a better power more than once per fight. This doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't make sense to a lot of us.Things should make sense, if they don't then they shouldn't exist. To a certain extent this should include magic. Magic should either have rules or not have rules, it shouldn't switch between both forms and it shouldn't be interchangeable with non-magic.[MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] I don't know exactly what it is, yet, but something about Rodney Thompsons exposition about fighter scares me. I'll get back to you.</blockquote>

Verification